Ben Finney wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > One case where this could become problematic is when permission is > > granted to create derivative works. If the derivative work can be > > distributed in binary-only form, then the copyright notices in the > > source code become irrelevant. > > I'm not sure how copyright law treats this in general. Is it the case > that a binary form, compiled from a copyrighted source form of a work, > is a "derived work", or is it the original copyrighted work itself?
I'd argue it is a translation and therefore a derivative work. The case becomes a little more clear when the source code is edited and/or additional pieces of software are linked into the binary. > I imagine that, whatever the answer to the above question -- whether > the redistribution in binary form is either the original work or a > derived work of the original -- the original copyright notice still > *applies*, whether it's included or not. Of course. Copyright remains in force until 70 years after the author has died (etc) regardless of any formalities. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
